Which was first the bible or the Qur-ān?

[Anthem]

So they say the Qur-ān is the real original book. The real thing, real ****, correct, perfect, genuine, untouched [translated and maybe written by someone other than Muhammad himself while he was hosting the angel Gabriel
..] still the perfect, holy, unique, magnificent...if you get my drift.

But, however, I also hear the bible was actually written first.

So actually the story about Jesus [Jesus is in the Quran] is in the Qur-ān in the correct form, but the bible - even though wrong and "touched thereafter" - was written first.

Imagine a new writer writing a renewed version of The lord Of The Rings and saying it is directly from god and the original written by Tolkien should be out the window and Tolkien hanged for writing the wrong thing - or perhaps for "touching" the book after it was written down by someone who knew 'Muhammad' while he met Gabriel several times [at night time¿] directly from the tales of God.

It's plagiarism!

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So they say the Qur-ān is the real original book. The real thing, real ****, correct, perfect, genuine, untouched [translated and maybe written by someone other than Muhammad himself while he was hosting the angel Gabriel
..] still the perfect, holy, unique, magnificent...if you get my drift.

But, however, I also hear the bible was actually written first.

So actually the story about Jesus [Jesus is in the Quran] is in the Qur-ān in the correct form, but the bible - even though wrong and "touched thereafter" - was written first.

Imagine a new writer writing a renewed version of The lord Of The Rings and saying it is directly from god and the original written by Tolkien should be out the window and Tolkien hanged for writing the wrong thing - or perhaps for "touching" the book after it was written down by someone who knew 'Muhammad' while he met Gabriel several times [at night time¿] directly from the tales of God.

It's plagiarism!

You're not suggesting the Bible was written by Jesus, are you?

 

[Sha'irullah]

The point of the Qur'an is to correct the Bible as the Injil is deemed corrupted by mankind. You just turned a very simple matter that requires a 90 IQ to a -300 IQ.

To answer your next question: Yes I am laughing as I write.

And by your logic the pagan religion is correct and the truest of all meaning your Jesus is a false prophet and a false messiah. Obviously you are a pagan if your logic carries through.

 

[Anthem]

The point of the Qur'an is to correct the Bible as the Injil is deemed corrupted by mankind. You just turned a very simple matter that requires a 90 IQ to a -300 IQ.

To answer your next question: Yes I am laughing as I write.

And by your logic the pagan religion is correct and the truest of all meaning your Jesus is a false prophet and a false messiah. Obviously you are a pagan if your logic carries through.

I'm a christian. Or so the priest said when he blessed me.

 

[Anthem]

You're not suggesting the Bible was written by Jesus, are you?

I don't think so - am I?

 

[Augustus]

Most Muslims believe the Quran o be eternal and uncreated.

The basis for this is that an all-knowing God must have always known about the revelation of the Quran and when it would occur. If it were otherwise, then it would be akin to God reacting to circumstance or 'changing his mind'.

So if God is eternal, and the Quran is literally the word of God, then it Quran must be coeternal with Him.

This would be the basis for arguing the Quran was first.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You're not suggesting the Bible was written by Jesus, are you?

You're analogy discusses the writer of the original having their work replaced.
Who is it you're supposing is the author of the Bible?

 

[Anthem]

You're analogy discusses the writer of the original having their work replaced.
Who is it you're supposing is the author of the Bible?

I really do not know.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I really do not know.

It was written by various people, and...depending on your views to some degree...involves a lot of accounts not based on eye witness.

So, the Quran...written after the Bible...acknowledges Jesus as a Prophet, but doesn't agree with the second hand accounts of him as the Messiah.

Agree or not...and I don't agree with either the Bible or the Quran...there is a coherant narrative.

 

[Augustus]

It's plagiarism!

The Quran reflects an Abrahamic environment and assumes a familiarity with Biblical and para-Biblical narratives in its audience. It is also, in parts, a commentary on Biblical traditions, rather than a retelling of them.

The idea that an ancient text, which reflects a particular cultural and historic environment and emerged in an oral tradition should be considered "plagiarism" is pretty asinine. Not to mention that many people at this time considered the Biblical narrative to reflect actual history.

You might as well say that the film Enemy at the Gates "plagiarises" the battle of Stalingrad or Gladiator "plagiarises" the Roman Empire.

That one text reflects another is intertextuality, and the vast majority of intertextual references have nothing to do with plagiarism.

The Romans didn't "plagiarise" the Greek gods, they adopted them into their own culture. Apocalypse Now is based on Conrad's Heart of Darkness, but it is not "plagiarism". If a fantasy novel has dwarves, dragons, elves and wizards this doesn't mean it "plagiarises" Lord of the Rings.

Reutilisation and reinterpretation of common cultural memes is an inescapable part of our socialisation, and mistaking it for plagiarism is ultimately a failure to comprehend the nature of culture in general.

 

[Anthem]

The Quran reflects an Abrahamic environment and assumes a familiarity with Biblical and para-Biblical narratives in its audience. It is also, in parts, a commentary on Biblical traditions, rather than a retelling of them.

The idea that an ancient text, which reflects a particular cultural and historic environment and emerged in an oral tradition should be considered "plagiarism"

right - well I guess it all depends on what the Quran says about Jesus...

 

[Augustus]

right - well I guess it all depends on what the Quran says about Jesus...

That would have no bearing on the issue whatsoever. Why do you think it would?

 

[Anthem]

That would have no bearing on the issue whatsoever. Why do you think it would?

I'm trying to figure out the truth behind them and their similarities.

 

[Augustus]

I'm trying to figure out the truth behind them and their similarities.

Because the Quran emerged in the Middle East in Late Antiquity and thus reflects the Abrahamic culture of the Middle East in Late Antiquity.

 

[Anthem]

Because the Quran emerged in the Middle East in Late Antiquity and thus reflects the Abrahamic culture of the Middle East in Late Antiquity.

Maybe. But i am interested in details.

 

[Augustus]

Maybe. But i am interested in details.

What details?

If you expect to get an answer that can be summed up in a few sentences you will be very disappointed.

The Quran isn't like the (narrative based) Bible in that it requires external knowledge of the traditions in order to be understood.

Indeed, a good number of Qur’ānic pericopes look like Arabic ingenious patchworks of Biblical and para- Biblical texts, designed to comment passages or aspects of the Scripture, whereas others look like Arabic translations of liturgical formulas.

This is not unexpected if we have in mind some Late Antique religious practices, namely the well-known fact that Christian Churches followed the Jewish custom of reading publicly the Scriptures, according to the lectionary principle. In other words, people did not read the whole of the Scripture to the assembly, but lectionaries (Syriac qǝryānā, Ǧreading of Scripture in Divine Service”, etymon of Arabic qur’ān), containing selected passages of the Scripture, to be read in the community. Therefore, many of the texts which constitute the Qur’ān should not be seen (at least if we are interested in their original Sitz im Leben) as substitutes for the (Jewish or Christian) Scripture, but rather as a (putatively divinely inspired) commentary of Scripture.

Traces of Bilingualism/Multilingualism in Qur'anic Arabic

The Qur’ān’s complex manipulation of the Aramaic Gospel Traditions is,
furthermore, neither accidental nor haphazard. It is rather, quite deliberate and
sophisticated. It wood behoove readers to realize a basic fact concerning dogmatic
re-articulation as we have laid it out herein, namely that the Qur’ān excercises
complete control over its challenging or re-appropriation of passages from the
Aramaic Gospels—not vice versa. This is evident both implicitly and explicitly
within the text... Finally, consider that the text skillfully translates or interprets
Hebrew and Aramaic terminology and seamlessly integrates them into the overall
literary, rhetorical, and theological coherence of the particular passage or Surah
wherin they occur, which is the unmistakable intention behind zakariyyā in Q 19:2
and s.arrah in Q 51:29 for example.

Dispensing with hasty and superficial readings of the text—which may incorrectly
yield ‘mistakes’ or ‘contraditions’ in the qur’ānic re-telling of Biblical narratives
or post-Biblical controversies—is the first step in truly appreciating its
linguistic, structural, and thematic integrity... The point is that such a dexterous command
of Biblical and post-Biblical literature as a whole, and such strong volition on the
part of the Qur’ān’s authorship, is central to our understanding of its dogmatic rearticulation
of the Aramaic Gospels Tradition. (The Quran and the Aramaic Gospel Traditions. - E El-Badawi)

Even a brief perusal of the Arabic Qurʾān is sufficient to convince the first-time reader that the text presumes a high degree of scriptural literacy on the part of its audience. In it there are frequent references to biblical patriarchs, prophets, and other gures of Late Antique, Jewish, and Christian religious lore. One hears of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, David, Solomon, Job, and Jonah, among others from the Hebrew Bible. Similarly, one reads of Jesus, Mary, Zecharaiah, John the Baptist, and Jesus’ disciples from the New Testament, but no mention of Paul and his epistles. What is more, there are numerous echoes in the Qurʾān of non- biblical, Jewish and Christian traditions, some of them otherwise found in so-called apocryphal or pseudepigraphic biblical texts. So prominent is this scriptural material in the body of the Islamic scripture that one twentieth- century Western scholar of Islam was prompted to speak of the Qurʾān as “a truncated, Arabic edition of the Bible.” But in fact the Qurʾān is much more than just an evocation of earlier biblical narratives; it incorporates the recollection of those earlier scriptures into its own call to belief, to Islam and its proper observance, as it says, in good, clarifying Arabic"S. Griffiths - The Bible in Arabic

Also

Mapping the Sources of the Qur'anic Jesus

 

[Faithofchristian]

So they say the Qur-ān is the real original book. The real thing, real ****, correct, perfect, genuine, untouched [translated and maybe written by someone other than Muhammad himself while he was hosting the angel Gabriel
..] still the perfect, holy, unique, magnificent...if you get my drift.

But, however, I also hear the bible was actually written first.

So actually the story about Jesus [Jesus is in the Quran] is in the Qur-ān in the correct form, but the bible - even though wrong and "touched thereafter" - was written first.

Imagine a new writer writing a renewed version of The lord Of The Rings and saying it is directly from god and the original written by Tolkien should be out the window and Tolkien hanged for writing the wrong thing - or perhaps for "touching" the book after it was written down by someone who knew 'Muhammad' while he met Gabriel several times [at night time¿] directly from the tales of God.

It's plagiarism!

Well seeing the old testament was written 3000 years ago and the New Testament was written a little over 2000 years ago.
The Qu'ran was written about 625 years ago.
So what do you think was written first?

 

[Anthem]

Well seeing the old testament was written 3000 years ago and the New Testament was written a little over 2000 years ago.
The Qu'ran was written about 625 years ago.
So what do you think was written first?

The Quran was written about 1400 years ago.. but I don't mean which is "written" first only but also which came to be first.

 

[Faithofchristian]

The Quran was written about 1400 years ago.. but I don't mean which is "written" first only but also which came to be first.

Well seeing the Old testament dates back to some 3000 years ago.
And the New Testament dates back in the year 70 or 80. So both old and new testament's out dates the Qu'ran.

Here's an easy way to figure it out.
Muhammad was born around in the year 550 give or take couple of years or so.
And the Qu'ran was written in the year 625 after the old and new testament's were already written.
Old testament = 3000 years ago
New testament = 1,970 years ago
Qu'ran = 1.398 years ago.